Content deleted Content added
Miki Filigranski (talk | contribs) |
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:: I had a look at the edit war and I don't see any rationale in claiming that a direct quote from an ancient source is more relevant than the many secondary sources that built upon it in the last, oh, millenium? Sadko, please stop littering the lead section with a phrasing that is blatantly Serbian nationalist. Were you ever notified of the existence of [[WP:ARBMAC]]? If not, please consider yourself notified. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
:: I had a look at the edit war and I don't see any rationale in claiming that a direct quote from an ancient source is more relevant than the many secondary sources that built upon it in the last, oh, millenium? Sadko, please stop littering the lead section with a phrasing that is blatantly Serbian nationalist. Were you ever notified of the existence of [[WP:ARBMAC]]? If not, please consider yourself notified. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: What? You had the opportunity to set an example of appropriate behavior by writing a comment about the content ''instead of personal viewpoint'', as noted, yet you made a comment on an editor making false accusations. You clearly have some issues with understanding Wikipedian editing policy when you are not able to recognize the reliability of sources, in other words, advocating the usage of unreliable (Serbian) nationalistic sources like of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo]]. Your edit on this article and simultaneously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vi%C5%A1eslav_of_Serbia&curid=3005163&action=history Višeslav of Serbia] clearly was not based on RS. If that's not true, sorry then, but you give such an impression. Making a revert of so reliably sourced information without proper substantiation is not in good faith.--[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 17:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
:: What? You had the opportunity to set an example of appropriate behavior by writing a comment about the content ''instead of personal viewpoint'', as noted, yet you made a comment on an editor making false accusations. You clearly have some issues with understanding Wikipedian editing policy when you are not able to recognize the reliability of sources, in other words, advocating the usage of unreliable (Serbian) nationalistic sources like of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo]]. Your edit on this article and simultaneously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vi%C5%A1eslav_of_Serbia&curid=3005163&action=history Višeslav of Serbia] clearly was not based on RS. If that's not true, sorry then, but you give such an impression. Making a revert of so reliably sourced information without proper substantiation is not in good faith.--[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 17:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
*That "ancient source" is the most relevant source for early Serb and Croat history. If you do not know that, there is not much to discuss. Do not try to label me, your hate speech in attempt will be brought to light, because you know nothing about my views. Second of all, all of this information can't be in Wiki voice, and what you are doing is nothing but subtle POV editing and [[WP:GAMING]]. You've added a bunch of Croatian historian's viewpoints in Wikivoice. It's quite obvious that the sources make a distinction between Croats and Narentines. Interestingly enough, there is a sentence about differences between 2 historiographies, which see things differently, but you choose not to add any information from the noted Serbian historians. Instead, you are pushing the idea that they are "something else" which is not the general conclusion or viewpoint shared by all historians, and it's mostly pushed by a part of Croatian historians. Also, when an editors challenges your additions to the stable version, you should start discussing first and not pushing the version which you, one editor, thing that it's "better". It's not. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:07, 1 January 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Slavic, Serb, Croat tribe
Nearly every modern source agrees that the Narentines were a separate Slavic tribe. There are examples of foreign sources (Florin Curta), Serbian sources (Tibor Živković) and Croat sources (Neven Budak, Ivo Goldstein) given in the article that confirm this. So IP, why do you keep changing the lead? Tzowu (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Neretva.
"southern Dalmatia centered at the river Neretva"
95% of Neretva river is NOT in Dalmatia. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
DAI
Starting a discussion regarding the recent disruptive reverts. @Sadko: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try again; learn how to talk to people, I believe that you are 18+ and that you know how to do so. This is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased pesonal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I had a look at the edit war and I don't see any rationale in claiming that a direct quote from an ancient source is more relevant than the many secondary sources that built upon it in the last, oh, millenium? Sadko, please stop littering the lead section with a phrasing that is blatantly Serbian nationalist. Were you ever notified of the existence of WP:ARBMAC? If not, please consider yourself notified. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- What? You had the opportunity to set an example of appropriate behavior by writing a comment about the content instead of personal viewpoint, as noted, yet you made a comment on an editor making false accusations. You clearly have some issues with understanding Wikipedian editing policy when you are not able to recognize the reliability of sources, in other words, advocating the usage of unreliable (Serbian) nationalistic sources like of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo. Your edit on this article and simultaneously Višeslav of Serbia clearly was not based on RS. If that's not true, sorry then, but you give such an impression. Making a revert of so reliably sourced information without proper substantiation is not in good faith.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- That "ancient source" is the most relevant source for early Serb and Croat history. If you do not know that, there is not much to discuss. Do not try to label me, your hate speech in attempt will be brought to light, because you know nothing about my views. Second of all, all of this information can't be in Wiki voice, and what you are doing is nothing but subtle POV editing and WP:GAMING. You've added a bunch of Croatian historian's viewpoints in Wikivoice. It's quite obvious that the sources make a distinction between Croats and Narentines. Interestingly enough, there is a sentence about differences between 2 historiographies, which see things differently, but you choose not to add any information from the noted Serbian historians. Instead, you are pushing the idea that they are "something else" which is not the general conclusion or viewpoint shared by all historians, and it's mostly pushed by a part of Croatian historians. Also, when an editors challenges your additions to the stable version, you should start discussing first and not pushing the version which you, one editor, thing that it's "better". It's not. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)